Natural Justice Rightly Understood; Case for Dialogue Between 2-Civilizations Re; The Crumbling of Nigerian “Christians Genocide” Narrative, By Umar Ardo – Part 6

By Olusegun R. Babalola

This DR. Umar Ardo’s disconcerting article, that cannot be thoroughly addressed in a single article, was brought to by notice by a Nigerian nationalist and federalist, Madu Bright O. Alwell. He noted; “We respectfully seeking a detailed response …” This has led 8-part response: The Nigerian Proxy Clash of Civilizations, Dr. Umar Ardo’s Role in the Proxy Clash of Civilization, Dr. Umar Ardo as Civilizational Strategist of Moral Violence, Understanding DR. Umar Ardo in the Age of Civilizationalism, DR. Umar Ardo’s Moral Violence and Kafkaesque Natural Justice Pretentions, Natural  Justice Rightly Understood; Case for Dialogue Between 2-Civilizations, The Fundamental Challenges; Neo-Crusade Between Muslims and Christians; and Nigeria @ Crossroads & the Way Forward. The general purpose is civic self-understanding of our problematic challenges towards a peaceful resolution and if possible, conversion.

Nigeria is blessed with two major civilizations: the Afro-Islamic civilization (AIC) and the Indigenous-African civilization (IAC). Each encompasses diverse traditions shaped by ethnicity, languages, dialects, urban regimes, and environments. These civilizations survived the Ardo’s unitarist “crime scene” and manifest residually in two ways; in our Constitution and constitutionalism (how the constitution is made to work). In the Constitution, there are two types of the Nigerian statutory, ancestral, and customary jurisprudence; the ancestral Islamic Sharia law and the native laws and customs. The natural and indigenous leaders of this moral/primordial public, who lost their independence to the British, are also the major moral custodians of our customary jurisprudence. This dualism is also captured in our constitutionalism with the Ooni of Ife and the Sultan of Sokoto as the co-chairmen of National Council of Traditional Rulers of Nigeria (NCTRN).

The key question is where to begin domestic reforms. Or in Ardo’s words in his 2021 article, how do we “reconcile ourselves to the fact that Nigeria must be restructured so as to survive for all Nigerians, wheresoever and whosoever they may be …” Ardo offered a telling answer; “For us to achieve restructuring, we must treat one another with truth, understanding, decency and respect. This point is very important in the success of the campaign for restructuring the country.” The answer can be found in Ardo’s weaponization of “natural justice” principles, though used in his exclusive, Kafkaesque and civilizational moral violence. The same principle offers a path forward when applied inclusively. These principles can form the spiritual basis for a handshake between the 2-civilizations toward strategic reforms. But one cannot suddenly change from Ardo’s exclusive worldview to and inclusive worldview without changing the basic assumptions of one’s worldview. That leads to the idea of the “Nigerian dream.”

The Nigerian Dream and African Renaissance

“The Nigerian Dream,” based on the principles of “natural justice,” properly used, was the theme of a speech Obasanjo once gave at the Eagle Square, Abuja in March 26, 2011. Here, Obasanjo speaks of common Nigerian “aspiration, ideal, hope, objective target,” “identity” and “something to fulfil” with “certain values and virtues that must go concomitantly with our dream.” Obasanjo also stated “with common identity as Nigerians, there is more that binds us than separates us. I am a Nigerian, born a Yoruba man, and I am proud of both identities as they are for me complimentary. Our duties, responsibilities and obligations to our country as citizens and, indeed, as leaders must go side by side with our rights and demands.” On the Nigerian Dream, Obasanjo spoke of “a land of unity in diversity, equal opportunity, land of freedom and choices; land of prosperity, fairness, peace and justice; land of love, care and harmony among its people; … and land where no one is oppressed, discriminated against, enslaved or endangered.” In the same speech, Obasanjo speaks of Nigeria’s role in African renaissance when he projected Nigeria as a “land respected internationally and playing its rightful role within the comity of nations …” (See The Nigerian Dream; Domesticating the Colonial Leviathan towards Afro-Democracy[1])

Along these lines, Afenifere Roundtable proposed a more responsible template for ranching, which includes restructuring, as opposed to Ardo’s ranching as a condition for restructuring. And the Roundtable based this on complementarity between Nigeria and their own civilization based on their rights and responsibilities. Dr. Ardo, too should embrace these principles which explore those things that “binds us,” based on our dual complementarity of our fidelity to our civilization and the Nigerian Dreams. This is where the understanding of how the intelligent colonial British managed and harmonized the 2-civilizations for colonial rule and domination.

Learning from British Colonial Rule

This approach draws from how the colonial British managed and harmonized the civilizations. For indirect rule, the British used brute force but also a unified, secularized legal order via the Doctrine of Repugnancy (DoR). This tested customary laws against “natural justice, equity, and good conscience” and colonial public policy. Rooted in English common law, it included procedural fairness (e.g., right to a fair hearing, no trial by ordeal, impartiality) and substantive prohibitions (e.g., against barbarity like human sacrifices, inhumane punishments, slavery, and gender inequality in inheritance).DoR impacted the 2-civilizations differently but with shared objections.

For Indigenous customary law, it refined practices by eliminating repugnant elements, such as discriminatory inheritance against women and human sacrifices … etc. For Sharia, it secularized the law, limiting it to personal and family matters in Alkali courts. Criminal jurisdiction shifted to magistrate courts, abolishing harsh hudud punishments (e.g., stoning, amputation) as repugnant, replaced by milder penalties in the 1960 Penal Code for Northern Nigeria. Both Sharia and native laws were subordinated to English law. In judicial architecture, DoR was embedded in High Court laws, Native Courts Ordinance of 1933, Native Courts (Amendment) Law of 1960, and survives in Section 18 of the Evidence Act 2011. The court system—Area Courts for customary/Sharia matters, High Courts, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court—applies this test, resolving conflicts with constitutional provisions. This creates a pluralistic system where customary laws coexist with common law and statutes, subordinate to repugnancy.

Post-independence retention has aided partial legal and civilizational harmonization. However, the abandonment (with implementation of full Sharia and general modernist disregard for customary law) and particularly the absence of monitored and constitutionalized Indigenous polities which could consistently and morally educate the society through local practice have led to moral relativism and the on-going nihilism.

Philosophical Implications of “Natural Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience”

The colonial “natural justice” relates to Leo Strauss’s classic natural right (CNR – Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle), and modern natural right (MNR- Hobbes and Locke). CNR stresses virtue, hierarchy (rule by the wise), and the good life, differing from MNR’s egalitarian, individualistic human rights. CNR provides a natural, reasonable approach to politics via pre-scientific commonsense, recognizing some things as naturally just, not merely conventional. It posits objective moral truths discoverable by reason, rooted in teleology where beings have purposes. These are universal but adaptable; Strauss noted a hierarchy of ends but no universal rules of action. It imitates nature as the “ancestor of all ancestors,” opposing modern conquest of nature. Prudence—acting correctly in situations—is key, committed to discerning “by nature just” via reason, transcending positive laws.

Colonial “natural justice” leaned toward MNR, influenced by Enlightenment, but served colonial policy. It acts as a gateway for human rights norms (e.g., UDHR, constitutions) into customary adjudication, promoting equality and dignity. From Strauss point of view, it’s a diluted modern variant—challenging relativism but lacking teleology or hierarchical virtue. Both CNR and MNR resist conventionalism, affirming reason in justice, CNR nullifies colonial DoR’s subjectivity, offers a local process of decolonization, transcending human rights clauses. Strauss warned abandoning commonsense good/bad, tied to ancient wisdom and human soul inclinations, leads to nihilism and relativism. This explains Nigeria’s insecurity challenges leading to the civilizational clashes.

Fortunately, cultivating objective truths via reason and teleology is familiar to both civilizations. Colonial administrators recognized “natural justice” residues in all societies, enabling DoR’s success, as commonsense anchors human souls universally.

“Natural Justice” and the Afro-Islamic Civilization

In Sokoto Caliphate and Kanem-Bornu Empire (Maliki school), CNR manifests at three levels: falasifa (philosophers), Mutakallimun (theologians), and Sufi metaphysics (‘Irfan). Mediterranean Falasifa drew from Greek influences via Averroes, Avicenna, al-Farabi, prioritizing philosophy over religion. In madrasas, Aristotelian logic (via Avicenna’s Mantiq) aided fiqh and theology debates in Sokoto/Borno, fostering rationalism without full metaphysics.  Mutakallimun, like Mu’tazila and Ash’ari, used Greek logic as a tool. Mu’tazila integrated logic, seeing reason (‘aql) as determining good/evil and truth. Ash’ari, post-Mu’tazila orthodoxy, used logic to defend revelation, interpreting doctrines like divine unity as a “middle way.” Kalam (speculative theology or dialectical reasoning), by both Mu’tazila and Ash’ari, applied Greek dialectics to ethics/governance, Quran-centered, akin to Plato’s dialectics. Whilst falasifa addressed “What?” and reason as truth source; Mutakallimun “How?”with reason as confirmation tool. Sufi metaphysics, via Ibn Arabi, used philosophical language but emphasized “unveiling” (kashf)—spiritual intuition beyond logic. Tijani Sufi, dominant in West Africa, focuses on Muhammad connection, exclusive affiliation, and a focus on daily structured liturgical citations (wird). In Sokoto/Borno, it blended intellect/intuition in philosophical sufism, paralleling Neoplatonism (which influenced Augustine) via Ibn Arabi’s wahdat al-wujud (unity of being).

Libraries in Sokoto/Borno hold related texts. These influenced rational governance: “scholar-king” model tempering zeal. Usman dan Fodio stressed justice, shura (consultation), ethical rule echoing al-Farabi’s virtuous city, Averroes’ rationalism, al-Ghazali’s reforms. Bornu’s rulers (e.g., Mai Dunama Dabbalemi, Idris Alooma) patronized scholars as judges/advisors, built schools, granted tax-exempt lands (mahrams) for intellectual communities. Reason within revelation achieved ethical thought, seen in just rule and administration.

Colonials knew humanist falasifa/Mutakallimun residues. They noticed philosophical sufism. Western equivalents, which emerged after were the Socratic humanists and Scholastics (e.g., Aquinas), harmonizing faith/reason using preserved Islamic-refined Aristotelian logic. These falasifa and Mutakallium according to Louis Munoz, preserved, advanced and re-educated Europe about Greco-Roman heritage when the heritage was lost around the 12^th Century. The colonial British must have been aware of these and their utility in customary jurisprudence.

“Natural Justice” and the Indigenous-African Civilization

Sophie Oluwole’s 2017 Socrates and Orunmila shows Ifá as African classical philosophy, akin to Socratic. Orunmila. Just as Socrates, wrote nothing; Ifa is preserved orally/memorized. Oluwole uses “quoted verses” as philosophical evidence. Similar in Omotade Adegbindin’s 2014 Ifá in Yorùbá Thought System, Oludamini Ogunnaike’s 2020 Deep Knowledge; Ways of Knowing in Sufism and Ifa, Two West African Intellectual Traditions. This observation was made long before though skewed by “socio-anthropological interpretations” of Ifá as a “social institution with only religious, ethnographical, and sociological significance” in Leo Frobenius’ 1913 The Voice of Africa, and several Wande Abimbola’s works (1975 Sixteen Great Poems of Ifá, 1976 Ifa: An Exposition). Ifá says Ifa is the Truth (Odu Osa Otura), urges wisdom – when we wake up, we should teach each other wisdom and not plan stupid things (Odu Oturupon-Owonrin). With 256 Odus (16 primal, 240 derivatives), organized as 4⁴ or 16², each has encyclopedic chapters: dialogues, parables, proverbs. Odu could mean sections/chapters/personalities or cities/philosophers/schools … etc. Babalawo training (10-12 years) includes principled memorization. Ifá parallels Western CNR: virtue/self-knowledge (Odu Ogbe Alara, Obara Meji), rule by wise (Odu Owonrin Meji), good life (Odu Ofun-Ko, Oturupon-Owonrin), fair hearing (Odu Iwori Meji), truth sanctity (Odu Ọsa Otura), nature (Odu Ogunda Ose) … etc., with African character. Advocates FoRB, accommodating Islam (Odu Otura Meji, Ika’bara, Ogbe Tura), Christian typologies (Odu Ogunda‑Tetuala, Ejiogbe, Idin‑Ileke). If there is anything that has made Ifa a central principle for all religions or their archetypes, it is the CNR, which has historically kins to the Islamic/Christian humanism (with Greek influence) and theological scholasticism.

Ifá equivalents span Volta-Niger languages: Yoruba (Ifa), Igbo (Afa), Ewe (Afá), Fon (Fá), Igala (Ífá), Edo (Iha), Ebira (Eva), Urhobo (Epha), Ukwuani (Efa), Nupe (Eba) … etc.,—all 16-bit archetypes. Igbo proverb says “Afa is common sense.” These commonsensical proverbs serve as “legal precedents” or “data” in jurisprudence, often tied to Ifá without explicit reference. This use of proverbs in customary jurisprudence is common to all these members of IAC. Several authors have examined the pivotal role of proverbs as “legal precedents” or “unwritten codes” in customary jurisprudence. As Odu Owonrin Meji says – “stupid people are comparable to flies in the jungle.”

Colonials knew Frobenius’ fascination with Ile-Ife’s “paideuma“—systematic, harmonious center. In Voice of Africa, he saw philosophical natives, with their unwritten traditions of classical antiquity (philosophy and arts) coordinated by an Ifa-centric way-of-life, beyond fetishism, comparing to antiquity, wrongly claiming Atlantean/Greek origins. The colonial British must have also been aware of Ifa/Afa/Iha/Efa/ Afá/ Fá/ Ífá/ Iha/ Eva/ Epha/ Eba … etc.  with its rational utility and relevance in customary jurisprudence

Decolonizing Doctrine of Repugnancy

Nigeria’s dual-civilization exceptionalism representative of the African continental realities, unlike South Africa that repealed DoR, requires “natural justice” as a shared purpose – the principled bases of handshake between the 2-civilizations. Since Doctrine of Repugnancy is composed of two elements; “natural justice” principles and colonial policy, all we need do is de-colonize the colonial policy. Colonial policy imposes foreign and colonial (English) standards leading to a subtle Western civilizational imperialism and erasure (epistemicide and politicide or what Ardo called “epistemic fragility” and “crisis”) of our notions of good life, potentially eroding local civilizational autonomy, resulting in a hybrid “judicial customary law” that deviates from original practices. As a result, colonial customary law is “frozen” in colonial interpretations based simply on the colonial policy, ignoring its living and adaptive nature into rigid, official versions, strange to our civilizations. For example, it perpetuated Western and patriarchal gender and social discriminations. As a result, there is the need for de-colonization primarily defined by the replacement of colonial policy with the de-colonial policy,

De-coloniality, also means the end to the repugnant, religious and hegemonic denigration of the residue of “natural justice principles” within the IAC which had made FoRB possible in the first place (discussed in Part 7). This denigration leads to the unfortunate emphasis of exploiting indigenous institutions only for security and dispute resolution rather than fully codifying and investing on customary jurisprudence with respect to indigenous notions of natural justice into modern governance.

If the colonial “natural justice” was instrumental in shaping Nigeria’s judicial architecture by bridging colonial legacies with indigenous systems, a de-colonial “natural justice” is still necessary in our judicial architecture as well as in societal education by bridging de-colonial Nigerian State with indigenous civilizations in a unified, secularized legal order for integration and development. Our instinctive struggles against civilizational erasure should be collective and mutual, moderated by our age-old cultivation of commonsense which also includes, most of all, moderation.

Civilizing Our Civilizations toward Nigerian Manifest Destiny

Higher ideals of CNR/natural justice—commonsense good/bad anchored in human soul—are core for rebuilding Nigeria. Abandoning them leads to nihilism/relativism, explaining insecurity, clash of civilizations, and as we shall see the transmogrification of clash of civilizations into crash “neo-Crusade” between Muslims and Christians. These rob us of stability/consensus, shortchanging potentials and strategic development in the unpredictable era of multipolar competition.

De-coloniality should also not be interpreted as repugnant atavism like the post-modern revival of un-modified Sharia law for AIC nor un-modified customary laws for the IA. In this re-construction, “identity” must not become “destiny” as Ardo critiqued. Rather, such concepts like “identity” and the fatalistic and anti-intellectual notions of “static culture” must recede for innovations devoted to the notions of good life of our civilizations. There is the need to mitigate civilizational erasure by empowering communities to evolve norms internally, whilst addressing inequalities without colonial biases and balancing tradition and change. By promoting living customary law of the 2-Civilizations with same shared values, we would preserve indigenous autonomy whilst allowing evolution, reducing colonial “bastardization.”

The major question is – if the “natural justice” principles are within the Nigerian legal system, then why are the absence of these principles, and their cultivation, in our society leading to moral relativism and nihilism? This leads us to the most fundament problems.

[1] https://obalufonics.com/the-nigerian-dream-domesticating-the-colonial-leviathan-towards-afro-democracy/